Muslim lunatics declare war on science and on free speech. [Archive]

Prairie Fire

23rd September 2008, 23:28

spice756

23rd September 2008, 23:29

What is Dawkins' website ?

The Qu'ran is a reactionary mythological joke

In plain English please.Are you saying they are reactionary to left?:confused:

Comrade B

23rd September 2008, 23:47

Oh the damnation of Islam from the left, how bland you have become...

Islamic religious extremists are no worse than Christian religious extremists, they just are more overtly running many middle eastern governments.

Damn fanaticism, not religion. I am a vegetarian, and I have no problem saying that fanatical animal rights people have no place in politics. People who follow something without question will always be wrong, lets not just target Islam.

Wanted Man

24th September 2008, 00:00

This may be a relevent topic, but the phrasing of the title is biggoted and insensative.

Also, in the context of the global situation and the wars of aggression in the middle east, having a go at Islam seems oppurtunistic at this time( and in line with the ideological trends of the bourgeois media.).

When I criticize you here Cheung mo, it is not an endorsement of Islam,;it is a criticism of your use of stereotypes, and my opinion that a broad condemnation of "Islamic ideas" is oppurtunistic (at this time).

Even though Cheung mo may be approaching the question from a point of view of secularism, it plays right into the hands of North American Christian capitalists, who (ironically) work hard to create an image of all Muslim peoples as primitive, irrational religious fundamentalists.

Furthering these stereotypes, in the name of "science" no less, only furthers the Imperialist agenda of military aggression and occupation in the middle east.

If I had the patience to deal with 'leftist' crusaders, this is what I would have said.

Whatever one may think of Islam or the Turkish AKP, it's ridiculous to suggest that far-right politicians like Fortuyn got it right. Fortuyn's claim that Islam is "a backwards culture" has never served the interests of science, it has only ever furthered racism. After 'Professor Pim' ate lead, his party still won a big victory. In power, they even supplied the Minister of Immigration, Hilbrand Nawijn. Thankfully, he didn't get to make much policy, because the government fell after 3 months due to petty squabbling between the ministers from Fortuyn's party. However, Rita Verdonk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Verdonk) was a 'good' successor for a few years. She now runs yet another nationalist splinter. Nawijn later formed a party based on virulent nationalism, which thankfully never took off.

So really, anyone who thinks that this guy's positions were a positive influence should really piss off. Or rather, come and take a look over here and tell people that their Turkish or Moroccan neighbours represent a 'backwards culture' that wants to conquer them. But then again, maybe you can get agreement from people who already vote for Wilders anyway. Oh, and I guess the fact that Theo van Gogh consistently referred to muslims as 'goatfuckers' also furthers science. :rolleyes:

Devrim

24th September 2008, 06:25

I think you're leaving details out...

Considering the secularism tradition in Turkey...I doubt people can ban "science" straight out unless they use different words or something.

Maybe I should ask the left-communists about this since some (2 or 1) are from Turkey...

I think what this concerns is the banning of Richard Dawkins website. Johnny Darko is right they can't come straight out and ban science in Turkey. The case to ban Dawkins book 'The God delusion' was thrown out of court.

However, Turkey does ban a lot of websites. (I think it is forth in the world banning league.), so much so that some proxies are now hosting Turkish advertising.

As I understand this case it concentrated on comments on different website hosted by word press. I have got no idea what these were, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of them related to Atatürk.

Criticising Atatürk is a sure way to get banned in Turkey. YouTube is banned for example because of the 'Gay Atatürk' video.

To conclude, I find it highly unlikly that a Turkish court has made the decsion to ban something on religious grounds.

This is a country remember where only recently the majority of constiutional court judges voted to ban the governing party for Islamicism (They didn't obtain a big enough majority).

Wordpress, not Dawkins in particular has been banned for being libellous.

Devrim

Devrim

24th September 2008, 06:30

The Qu'ran is a reactionary mythological joke book in the grand tradition of the Bible.

The Qu'ran, in the original Arabic, is actually an amazingly beautiful piece of poetry, and a part of the cultural treasure of humanity, in the same way as Shakespeare, for example, is.

Devrim

Wilfred

24th September 2008, 22:07

The Qu'ran, in the original Arabic, is actually an amazingly beautiful piece of poetry, and a part of the cultural treasure of humanity, in the same way as Shakespeare, for example, is.

Devrim

But shakespeare had more respect for say women's rights than the quran, and shakespeare didn't call for killing non-believers, and shakespeare never claimed to have the same claim to truth the quran does and shakespeare doesn't call for daily prayers to claim that jews and christians are inferior. Sheesh.
Considering the secularism tradition in Turkey...I doubt people can ban "science" straight out unless they use different words or something. Turkey is a country where you can choose between right-wing militarists and religious fanatics. They also have more creationist loonies than the usa. There are very very few left-wing people in turkey unfortunately.

Zurdito

24th September 2008, 22:39

But shakespeare had more respect for say women's rights than the quran,

really? what respect did Shakespeare have for women's rights?

and shakespeare didn't call for killing non-believers,

what happened to the villains in Shakespeare's plays hwo upset the "chain of being" created by God with Him at the top and the King as ruling in his name?

and shakespeare never claimed to have the same claim to truth the quran does

he pretty much did...

and shakespeare doesn't call for daily prayers to claim that jews and christians are inferior.

Shakespeare was hardly a big fan of Jews was he? Have you ever read the Merchant of Venice?

I don't think you know much about shakespeare, really. he was ultra-reactionary and his plays were intended to give a strong moral message to his viewers: to respect authority and God.

obviously this doesn't disqualify his work as being artistically great.

the same could well be true of the Quran, unless you have read it you shouldn't comment.

bcbm

24th September 2008, 22:48

But shakespeare had more respect for say women's rights than the quran, and shakespeare didn't call for killing non-believers, and shakespeare never claimed to have the same claim to truth the quran does and shakespeare doesn't call for daily prayers to claim that jews and christians are inferior. Sheesh.

Does great poetry need to be "pure" to be good? If so, then we'd have to cast off most of the beautiful works of poetry, art, etc from our society because like it or not, people have always been pretty fucked up and some of the most brilliant minds have also been the most troubled.

Beyond their, your point on women is especially off given that the Koran gave women more rights than they had ever enjoyed in Arab society. Bringing up Shakespeare in this way is also a bit silly... have you read Taming of the Shrew?

Chapaev

24th September 2008, 23:12

This hostile attitude towards Islam as shown by the title of this thread is inexcusable for its chauvinism and tacit alignment with imperialism and zionism. We must do everything to demonstrate our sympathy for the Muslims, their autonomy, independence, etc.

The attack against the Holy Qu'ran is equally unacceptable. To attack the Qu'ran in the manner that the original poster has promotes disharmony among nations.

It is the Qu'ran from which many Muslims derive inspiration for their just struggle for national liberation. In this respect, the Qu'ran is a progressive. 42:21 of the Holy Qu'ran says: If if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong (done) to them, against such there is no cause of blame.

Devrim

25th September 2008, 07:15

But shakespeare had more respect for say women's rights than the quran, and shakespeare didn't call for killing non-believers, and shakespeare never claimed to have the same claim to truth the quran does and shakespeare doesn't call for daily prayers to claim that jews and christians are inferior. Sheesh.

I think that this has mostly been dealt with. Certainly though to put the issue of women's rights in perspective at the time in Arabia the Koran was progressive.

The other alternative though to this argument here, which incidentally is the one used by the right, is taking a completely uncritical, even fawning perspective towards Islam. This is exemplified by 'Velior'.

The attack against the Holy Qu'ran is equally unacceptable.

So it is the 'Holy Qu'ran now?

It is the Qu'ran from which many Muslims derive inspiration for their just struggle for national liberation. In this respect, the Qu'ran is a progressive. 42:21 of the Holy Qu'ran says: If if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong (done) to them, against such there is no cause of blame.

Actually the Qu'ran advocates political quietism, and says that one should obey an unjust ruler.

Devrim

Devrim

25th September 2008, 07:32

Turkey is a country where you can choose between right-wing militarists and religious fanatics. They also have more creationist loonies than the usa. There are very very few left-wing people in turkey unfortunately.

The comments on Turkey seem to be as ignorant as the other comments. D you know a lot about the left in Turkey? Have you ever been there, or even spoken to anyone from there?

My experience having lived in England as well as Turkey is that what people would consider the left in Turkey is much bigger.

To make a comparison with the UK (which is a country I know well);

This year on Mayday there were 500,000 thousand people on the Mayday march in İstanbul. How does that compare to the UK?

The red unions in Turkey, DİSK, have a membership of hundreds of thousands. How would that compare with the IWW in the UK?

In the average Turkish small shop, you have a choice of daily newspapers produced by leftist parties. Do any UK leftist parties manage to produce a daily?

There was a general strike in Turkey this year over pensions. English workers are having exactly the same problems. Was there a general strike there?

The feeling that I get is that Wilfred's interest is in painting all of the people of the Middle East as 'Islamic loonies'. Doing this doesn't really help anyone but the far right.

Yes, there are Islamic extremists in the Middle East, but it doesn't mean that everyone is. The ruling AKP in Turkey, one of the groups that he implies are 'religious fanatics' are actually the Turkish equivalent of a 'Christian Democrat' party. Certainly less religious than the American Republicans. As a worker, I am more concerned about their pension reform plans than about their religious convictions.

Devrim

counterblast

25th September 2008, 09:26

There are very very few left-wing people in turkey unfortunately.

What are you basing this statement on? Westernized stereotypes?

Wanted Man

25th September 2008, 10:45

Turkey is a country where you can choose between right-wing militarists and religious fanatics. They also have more creationist loonies than the usa. There are very very few left-wing people in turkey unfortunately.
Really? Compare the movement in Turkey to that of the USA, UK, Holland, Canada, Australia, etc. You'd be surprised. The 'choice' you speak of is therefore a false one. As for the comparison with American 'creationist loonies', surely you realise it's comparing apples and oranges.

UndergroundConnexion

25th September 2008, 19:44

Before you start spreading your Islamophobic non sense about it beign reactionary and such , allow me to introduce you to the political and econimical Islamic ideas:

Islamic Society

1. A a leader chosen by the people , and which governs together with the people.
2. Separation of power , between the executioning and the judiciary powers.
3. An egalitarian economic system , based on solidarty (which is the norm) and the prevention of exploitation , monopoly and concentration of capital
4. Protection of minoirties, and respect of diversity , also in cultures
5. freedom of speech and partipication in elections , as a candidate or as a politcal act.

Economics

1. Property is created by labour
2 . Natural resources and grounds are peoples (public) property
3.Interests on money is forbidden , and no money can produce money without labour.
4. Forming monopolies is forbidden
5. Concentration of money (capital ) on a yearly basis is heavely taxed and grealty discouraged.
6 The state should actively participate in the equal distribution of resources , cohesion in society and general solidarty
7. Every citizen has the right on decent work ,and if phyiscaly not able to work , has the right on income which covers the essential of his needs.

(translated from Dyab Abou Jahjah , Tussen twee werelden).

Devrim

25th September 2008, 20:10

The above post is another example of leftists fawning perspective towards Islam.

Devrim

UndergroundConnexion

28th September 2008, 11:16

Explain further. I want to point out that Islam is the most political of the monotheistic religions. Apart from that, I used the above points to illustrate how Islam can very well be close to our ideas.

Apart from that, the Qu'ran sure is one of the most beautiful books ever written. Such an immensly rich and poetic text. The life of Muhammad is also fantastically interesting to study. I would recoment that book by Tariq Ramadan , in the Footsteps of the Prophet... that will definatly change your view on Islam , if you are not familiar with it (like some islamophobe people in this topic )

BraneMatter

28th September 2008, 13:00

It's simple: Muslim fundamentalists KILL communists in their countries, Iran being one example.

They are NOT our friends. Anyone who thinks Marxists can have any real alliance with ANY religious orthodoxy or religious fundamentalism, Islamic or otherwise, is living in delusion. Any such alliances should be undertaken only on a temporary basis, if at all. Marxism is fundamentally at odds with superstition, priests and witch doctors, and strives to be scientific in its practice.

How can Marxists have any lasting alliance with those who insist that the Koran or Bible is the ultimate authority for human society? As Marxists, we ARE biased against them! Otherwise, we betray our own philosophy. We need to free these people from their enslavement to metaphysical gobbledygook. (And yes, Governor Palin and the witch hunter exorcist, and all that church of hers rolling around on the floor and speaking in tongues, are just as dangerous!)

My own opinion is that any such alliances must be aimed directly at helping the people themselves, and NOT their religious leaders or institutions, with the ultimate aim of liberating them from religious superstition AND capitalism.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.

The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked.

Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics. - Karl Marx

UndergroundConnexion

28th September 2008, 14:30

Yes as socialists we are against religious fundementalist , who are often reactionary and indeed try to damage the movement. However , we are thus against these specific people. We should not be agains Muslims. As history has shown , many muslims were inspired by the Qu'ran and by socialism. There are many Islamic socialists.

BraneMatter

28th September 2008, 16:02

As Section IV of the Manifesto points out, communists CAN work with others IF they are acting in a revolutionary way. An example would be those priests of the Catholic Church who fall into the "liberation theology" camp, even though the Church heirarchy has opposed the liberation movement.

Devrim

28th September 2008, 19:57

Explain further. I want to point out that Islam is the most political of the monotheistic religions. Apart from that, I used the above points to illustrate how Islam can very well be close to our ideas.

Islam is not at all close to socialist ideas. It is a deeply reactionary ideology.

Apart from that, the Qu'ran sure is one of the most beautiful books ever written. Such an immensly rich and poetic text.

The Qu'ran is pretty Banal in English. I have read it in Arabic and it is impressive, but in English (and I imagine other languages) it is pretty turgid.

Devrim

Agrippa

28th September 2008, 20:54

There is room for Muslims in society, but there ought never to be space for Islamic ideas in civil society. Pim Fortuyn, a libertarian critic of both Islam and conservative Christianity had one thing right (and it sure as fuck wasn't economics): The Qu'ran is a reactionary mythological joke book in the grand tradition of the Bible. Well, I guess he was right about drug policy and about gay rights as well.

This is my first time posting and I want to address my immediate thoughts to the initial post before I delve into the subsequent exchanges - my pardon if any points I make have already been addressed on this thread and are redundant.

It's worth pointing out that regardless of one's religious outlook, and regardless of Dawkins' brilliant contributions to neurology, the recently popularized works of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hichens (I don't think I need to educate anyone on this forum on the latter's history of neo-liberal polemics) were not written in a political vacuum.

The works of all three (The God Delusion, The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, God Is Not Great, etc.) in addition to offering a general criticism of "religion" (which itself can be questioned as spurious considering the term "religion" encompasses a near-endless variety of ideologies, many of which have very little in common) devote considerable attention to what is intended as a "criticism of Islam" but is in fact a laundry list of talking points for both the European anti-immigrant movement (and the greater struggle for the U.S. and other western powers to maintain prominance in the middle East) most of which have little to do with Islamic theology and everything to do with the dynamics of class and white imperialism.

The best example of how this sort of rhetoric transparently serves the purpose of justifying neo-liberal foreign policy can be found in Sam Harris. Just by going to his Wikipedia, you can read:

While Harris criticizes all religions, he argues that the doctrines of Islam are uniquely dangerous to civilization. Harris criticizes the general response in the West to terrorist atrocities such as 9/11, i.e. the response of pronouncing Islam a "religion of peace," while simultaneously declaring a "war on terror." Harris sees the first sentiment as demonstrably false, and the second as meaningless. Instead, he says, we should plainly acknowledge that Western civilization is at war with Islam which, he maintains, preaches a doctrine of religious and political subjugation, not a message of peace. [...] That such notions might be merely the product of a more extreme form of Islam is an argument Harris considers to be especially untenable in the light of the worldwide violence that erupted in 2006 as a consequence of the publication of cartoons depicting (and satirizing) the Prophet Muhammad. He argues that the riots did not occur because the cartoon was "especially derogatory," but because "most Muslims believe that it is a sacrilege to depict Muhammad at all." The truth, in fact, is that the riots that erupted over the Middle East over the Danish cartoons had as much to do with the cartoons themselves as the 1992 L.A. Riots had to do with whether or not Rodney King was using PCP, as the police officers that assaulted him alleged. Most rioters had in fact not seen the cartoons, and the targets of their riots included McDonalds, KFC and other signs of Western economic influence that had nothing to do with the issue of Islam or blasphemy against Islam.

The primary premise of all of this rhetoric is that Islamic society is uniquely intolerant of dissent, which is spurious considering the frequency of which dissenting opinion is suppressed in the West. Take for example the recent arrests of three members of the Black Rider Liberation Party, or the arrest of Joaquin Cienfuegos, or the liberal animal rights blogger who was charged with inciting a riot because he posted information about a legal, non-violent animal right protest, or the mass-arrests that occurred shortly before the G8 in Hokkaido.

Furthermore, pointing out that the Qu'aran is a "reactionary mythological joke book", whatever that means, (the Qu'aran is not really that remarkably different than other texts from that time and place, unless the objection is to all literature written before the Enlightenment or the industrial revolution) is significantly less useful than analyzing the role Islamic Fundamentalism plays in a political and economic context. For this, I have found the following articles to be of use: (I am not allowed to post links but they can all be found by a quick Google search)

- WOMEN’S WAR DAILY #1 and WOMEN'S WAR DAILY #2 - Butch Lee
- Beyond Mcantiwar - J. Sakai
- "Islamic fundamentalism and the three-way fight" and "Defending My Enemy's Enemy", both found on the threewayfight blog

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th September 2008, 23:27

The works of all three (The God Delusion, The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, God Is Not Great, etc.) in addition to offering a general criticism of "religion" (which itself can be questioned as spurious considering the term "religion" encompasses a near-endless variety of ideologies, many of which have very little in common)

Except one; belief in the supernatural. That's why those morons who insinuate or outright state that Marxism "is a religion" are wrong.

Most arguments against "the God Hypothesis" can be easily adapted to any other manifestation of supernatural superstition.

devote considerable attention to what is intended as a "criticism of Islam" but is in fact a laundry list of talking points for both the European anti-immigrant movement (and the greater struggle for the U.S. and other western powers to maintain prominance in the middle East) most of which have little to do with Islamic theology and everything to do with the dynamics of class and white imperialism.

The God Delusion is the only one of the tomes you mentioned that I have in my posession, and in it Dawkins devotes more lines of text to eviscerating Christian nonsense more than Islam; most of the quotes which he criticises are from Christians, not Muslims.

I agree with you that Hitchens' work is sloppy and saturated with the retarded belief that Islam is somehow "worse" than other religions, but could you please refrain from tarring others with that brush? It's bad enough that most God-botherers criticise Dawkins' book without actually having read it, but it makes it worse when atheists (assuming you are an atheist) do the same.

The truth, in fact, is that the riots that erupted over the Middle East over the Danish cartoons had as much to do with the cartoons themselves as the 1992 L.A. Riots had to do with whether or not Rodney King was using PCP, as the police officers that assaulted him alleged. Most rioters had in fact not seen the cartoons, and the targets of their riots included McDonalds, KFC and other signs of Western economic influence that had nothing to do with the issue of Islam or blasphemy against Islam.

That doesn't imply that most Muslims have a nuanced critique of Western imperialism any more than English football hooligans smashing BMWs, Peugeots or Lamborghinis depending on the nationality of the club they've just lost to indicates they have a nuanced knowledge of European politics.

Most anti-Western Muslims criticise the West not because of it's imperialism, but because of the West's "immorality". To them we are "infidels" who seek to impose our "immorality" on them. Were the power situation reversed, most anti-Western Muslims would be imperialist against the West.

This is not, I'm afraid I must point out, any justification for Western imperialism, which does happen. But the imperialism is economic, not moral in nature - the imperialists don't give a shit if their quislings are fundies or not, as long as they're obedient. McDonalds and KFC are obviously Western institutions and are easy targets for those dissatisfied with the West for whatever reason.

Talk by Western imperialists about "liberation" are to be taken with a suitably mountain-sized grain of salt. Sooner or later the Muslim world will liberate itself.

The primary premise of all of this rhetoric is that Islamic society is uniquely intolerant of dissent, which is spurious considering the frequency of which dissenting opinion is suppressed in the West. Take for example the recent arrests of three members of the Black Rider Liberation Party, or the arrest of Joaquin Cienfuegos, or the liberal animal rights blogger who was charged with inciting a riot because he posted information about a legal, non-violent animal right protest, or the mass-arrests that occurred shortly before the G8 in Hokkaido.

I agree with you that Western societies unfairly squash dissent and that Muslim societies are not special in this regard. But as far as I know, Hitchens and people like him are the only ones that hold this view. Most other atheists have equal contempt for all monotheistic religions.

Wanted Man

28th September 2008, 23:32

That doesn't imply that most Muslims have a nuanced critique of Western imperialism any more than English football hooligans smashing BMWs, Peugeots or Lamborghinis depending on the nationality of the club they've just lost to indicates they have a nuanced knowledge of European politics.

Most anti-Western Muslims criticise the West not because of it's imperialism, but because of the West's "immorality". To them we are "infidels" who seek to impose our "immorality" on them. Were the power situation reversed, most anti-Western Muslims would be imperialist against the West.
Is that really the case?

OI OI OI

28th September 2008, 23:55

It's really shocking that people defend Islam which just as reactionary as Christianity and even more.

The islamic regimes like Iran are the most terrible regimes for the working class.

Wanted Man

29th September 2008, 00:05

It's really shocking that people defend Islam which just as reactionary as Christianity and even more.

The islamic regimes like Iran are the most terrible regimes for the working class.

It's really shocking (well, not really) that archetypical angry white men on RevLeft are passing judgment on millions of people whom they've never met. Incidentally, such people often happen to come from creamy-white places in North America. I don't know if that's the case with you, but I somehow doubt that you know much about Islam. You'd have to be a pretty big fucking moron (well, that's what you are, after all) to think that Islam = the Iranian government and the Iranian government = Islam.

Sam_b

29th September 2008, 00:14

It's really shocking (well, not really) that archetypical angry white men on RevLeft are passing judgment on millions of people whom they've never met. Incidentally, such people often happen to come from creamy-white places in North America. I don't know if that's the case with you, but I somehow doubt that you know much about Islam. You'd have to be a pretty big fucking moron (well, that's what you are, after all) to think that Islam = the Iranian government and the Iranian government = Islam.

Spot on. Its sad to see some members on this forum degenerate argument into an Islamophobic diatribe which only serves to legitamise the actions of the ruling class and their interventions in the Islamic community rather than unite the working class regardless of religious belief.

When they came for the Muslims I did not speak out, for I was not a Muslim....

Wanted Man

29th September 2008, 00:30

The funny thing is that people like that do try to put it in a socialist package. But what will this mean in practice? That whenever you approach muslim workers, you first have to make this disclaimer: "Look, we'll support you, we have this whole internationalism thing going on and all that. But just remember this: We think your culture is utterly backards and hostile to our values, and that your beliefs are exceptionally reactionary and fascist"?

In reality, it's a good way to avoid dealing with such difficulties, and just leave the muslim workers in the cold (or even throw them under the bus by calling them 'reactionary') altogether.

hekmatista

29th September 2008, 00:51

1. A a leader chosen by the people , and which governs together with the people.
2. Separation of power , between the executioning and the judiciary powers.
3. An egalitarian economic system , based on solidarty (which is the norm) and the prevention of exploitation , monopoly and concentration of capital
4. Protection of minoirties, and respect of diversity , also in cultures
5. freedom of speech and partipication in elections , as a candidate or as a politcal act.

Economics

1. Property is created by labour
2 . Natural resources and grounds are peoples (public) property
3.Interests on money is forbidden , and no money can produce money without labour.
4. Forming monopolies is forbidden
5. Concentration of money (capital ) on a yearly basis is heavely taxed and grealty discouraged.
6 The state should actively participate in the equal distribution of resources , cohesion in society and general solidarty
7. Every citizen has the right on decent work ,and if phyiscaly not able to work , has the right on income which covers the essential of his needs.

(translated from Dyab Abou Jahjah , Tussen twee werelden).
These are ideals similar to those which informed precapitalist Christian Europe. In the event, such ethical norms fall before the growth of capital. DeValera tried to institute Catholic social justice reforms in Ireland after the betrayal of the workers' republic there; Ireland remains miserably capitalist.

Random Precision

29th September 2008, 01:06

The main reason we're hearing about "Islamofascism" and "Islamophobia" right now is pretty simple: most people who live in places where there is oil the West wants are Muslim. Were great oil reserves located in Southeast Asia instead, most likely we would be hearing about "Buddhofascism" and "Buddhophobia".

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

29th September 2008, 01:36

Is that really the case?

I don't see why not. Muslims are as human as anyone else and are subject to the same laws of social reality. If Iran or Saudi Arabia were more powerful than the US, then I see no reason why they wouldn't engage in imperialist activity.

Also, I assume that people in the Muslim world are lied to and propagandised by sources both secular and clerical, just as workers of all religions are in the West. The exception is that the emphasis of the source of propaganda in the Muslim world is reversed, whereas in the West most propaganda (with the possible exception of the US) stems from (overtly) secular sources. This seems to be a reasonable assumption, especially considering the high religiousity of Muslim immigrants.

The main reason we're hearing about "Islamofascism" and "Islamophobia" right now is pretty simple: most people who live in places where there is oil the West wants are Muslim. Were great oil reserves located in Southeast Asia instead, most likely we would be hearing about "Buddhofascism" and "Buddhophobia".

I'm not sure if the example of Buddhism is a good one due due to the relatively small emphasis on prosletysing. In general I agree, but I also think that Islamic immigration into Western countries is also a factor, with reactionaries and woolly-minded liberals alike using it to further their political goals.

OI OI OI

29th September 2008, 01:53

Whatever Wanted Man.

Islam is a religion that is in a phase of Christian Midevilism.

Religion is a changing thing and Islam right now is reactionary.

I am not talking about what islam meant 500 years ago.
I am talking about Islam right now .

Islam right now is Iran, Hamas, Hizbollah, Saudi Arabia , women getting stoned because they re "whores" etc.

Btw I m not entirely white

Trystan

29th September 2008, 01:56

Sendo

29th September 2008, 02:23

Does great poetry need to be "pure" to be good? If so, then we'd have to cast off most of the beautiful works of poetry, art, etc from our society because like it or not, people have always been pretty fucked up and some of the most brilliant minds have also been the most troubled.

Rudyard Kipling, anyone? George Orwell hated Kipling as a person but loved his work.

TheRedRevolutionary

29th September 2008, 02:49

It's really shocking (well, not really) that archetypical angry white men on RevLeft are passing judgment on millions of people whom they've never met. Incidentally, such people often happen to come from creamy-white places in North America. I don't know if that's the case with you, but I somehow doubt that you know much about Islam. You'd have to be a pretty big fucking moron (well, that's what you are, after all) to think that Islam = the Iranian government and the Iranian government = Islam.

Wanted Man, Comrade, I believe you have given a response, par excellance , the definitive Marxist Leninist response to the reactionary rhetoric of this Trot.

It is amazing that when Trots talk about anything other than their own tiny sects how strikingly similar their message is to that of bourgeois propaganda.

Devrim

29th September 2008, 06:57

That whenever you approach muslim workers, you first have to make this disclaimer: "Look, we'll support you, we have this whole internationalism thing going on and all that. But just remember this: We think your culture is utterly backards and hostile to our values, and that your beliefs are exceptionally reactionary and fascist"?

I think that this side makes the same mistake as those ranting against Islam. It lumps all 'Muslims' together in a way that would be mocked if we did it with Western workers. Everytime I speak to an English worker, I don't think that their 'culture is utterly backwards and hostile to our values'. But it is, their Queen, their Union Jack, their imperialism, their democracy, your Christianity... It is as the WM says 'exceptionally reactionary'.

However, we address workers as workers, not as representatives of some bourgeois culture or other. This is what all those from both sides on this thread forget as they address them as Muslims.

Devrim

Wanted Man

29th September 2008, 12:13

I don't see why not. Muslims are as human as anyone else and are subject to the same laws of social reality. If Iran or Saudi Arabia were more powerful than the US, then I see no reason why they wouldn't engage in imperialist activity.

Also, I assume that people in the Muslim world are lied to and propagandised by sources both secular and clerical, just as workers of all religions are in the West. The exception is that the emphasis of the source of propaganda in the Muslim world is reversed, whereas in the West most propaganda (with the possible exception of the US) stems from (overtly) secular sources. This seems to be a reasonable assumption, especially considering the high religiousity of Muslim immigrants.
Well, what I was asking about was your claim that muslims are (generalisation) against the west because we are (generalisation) 'infidels' in their eyes (generalisation). I think it's a bit of a discriminatory assumption, because it leads to the conclusion that muslim workers are (generalisation) automatically less class conscious than other workers, purely because they have the Islamic religion. Even if your assumption was right, it would be a typical case of 'false consciousness' amongst muslim workers. Which is just like a British worker who thinks he's being screwed over by immigrants, the EU, political correctness, etc. So to make muslims look (generalisation) exceptionally reactionary compared to others is what Devrim rightly criticised as lumping people together according to religion or ethnicity, instead of class.

As for whether 'they' (those muslims who oppose the west) would be 'imperialist' against 'us' if the situation were reversed: well, of course! Just like most anti-Islamic westerners are imperialist against the Middle East. Of course hatemongerers like that will eventually only serve imperialism. That's not very surprising.

Islam right now is Iran, Hamas, Hizbollah, Saudi Arabia , women getting stoned because they re "whores" etc.
I'm sorry, but you simply don't have a clue. Read a book. And I don't give a hoot about your skin colour, I'm talking about your background. Surely, if an Arab teenage kid had the audacity to pass judgement on Quebecqois independence, and call anyone who disagrees a reactionary, you'd rightly tell him to fuck off.

Wow. Islam, "close to our ideas". I wonder if hanging minors for homosexuality is "close to our ideas".

Fuck Islam. If that makes me an "Islamophobe" then so be it. Better to be an Islamophobe than an Islamophile.
Same goes for you. Not that I think Islam is necessarily "close to our ideas". But in the real world, there are an estimated 1-1.8 billion people who unfortunately believe in this particular kind of religion. What would a proudly Islamophobic 'leftist' propose to be done with them?

I think that this side makes the same mistake as those ranting against Islam. It lumps all 'Muslims' together in a way that would be mocked if we did it with Western workers. Everytime I speak to an English worker, I don't think that their 'culture is utterly backwards and hostile to our values'. But it is, their Queen, their Union Jack, their imperialism, their democracy, your Christianity... It is as the WM says 'exceptionally reactionary'.

However, we address workers as workers, not as representatives of some bourgeois culture or other. This is what all those from both sides on this thread forget as they address them as Muslims.

Devrim
I agree with that, actually. The problem with this thread is that it presupposes a separation between 'muslims' (or muslim workers) and 'westerners' (or western workers). To be precise, that the religion and culture of one group is significantly more reactionary than that of the other group, and that they should therefore face discrimination. Cheung Mo grudgingly concedes that "there is room for muslims in society" (even the worst European nationalists don't think all muslims should be deported...), but that's just about all we're getting. And of course, to support the ideas of Pim Fortuyn is outrageous to anyone worth their salt.

Any further argument in this thread seems to necessarily continue from this paradigm, because other people will inevitably feel called upon to defend people from being discriminated against for their religion or ethnicity, if only to level the playing field and actually have a reasonable discussion. Of course, that will be kind of hard when people continue to claim that all muslims want to stone gay people.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

29th September 2008, 13:36

Well, what I was asking about was your claim that muslims are (generalisation) against the west because we are (generalisation) 'infidels' in their eyes (generalisation). I think it's a bit of a discriminatory assumption, because it leads to the conclusion that muslim workers are (generalisation) automatically less class conscious than other workers, purely because they have the Islamic religion. Even if your assumption was right, it would be a typical case of 'false consciousness' amongst muslim workers. Which is just like a British worker who thinks he's being screwed over by immigrants, the EU, political correctness, etc. So to make muslims look (generalisation) exceptionally reactionary compared to others is what Devrim rightly criticised as lumping people together according to religion or ethnicity, instead of class.

Well, if you read you'll notice I said "most" Muslims, because I assume that, as in the West, leftists are in the minority.

UndergroundConnexion

29th September 2008, 23:13

Wanted Man

29th September 2008, 23:47

Well, if you read you'll notice I said "most" Muslims, because I assume that, as in the West, leftists are in the minority.
Oh, there's no doubt about that. But that doesn't take us any further in terms of Islam's supposedly exceptional form of reaction, which some people in this thread have alleged (I know you're better than that). As it stands, more muslim workers are against imperialism, because it's bombing their houses as we speak. Not because 'they' think that 'we' are 'infidels', contrary to the wrong conclusions that the ruling class is trying to spread. The task of western socialists is not to condemn their opposition to imperialism and western countries' nationalism as 'reactionary', but to organise against their own bourgeoisie, and show solidarity with those who are fighting imperialism.

Lenin's Law

29th September 2008, 23:56

That bullshit I read in some posts saying :
Islam is stoning women, hanging homosexuals etc. etc.

That is using exactly the same thinking patterns as reactionaries do towards socialism
"Socialism , pol pot balalba north korea, blablabalba"

Funny you guys buy into that kind of shit when it concerns Islam.

Agreed.

It is very unfortunate how same people repeat liberal streotypes and generalizations about Muslims in general and not direct their arguments against the governments, the ruling class and the Islamic reactionaries (who largely have been supported, financed and armed by Western imperialism as a weapon to destroy the leftist movement in those countries - think Iran 1953 or Afghanistan in the 1980s)

It reminds one of the streotypes hurled by some leftists against Americans being all about "Bush, Cheney, war, imperalism, religion and guns)

I would encourage some people here to check out Tariq Ali's "The Clash of Fundamentalisms" it gives a history of the popular struggles in Islam from its birth up until the present time. It is an answer to Samuel P. Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations" who proposes that there is an inherent difference between Muslims and the West...a theory that some people seem to share here. Ali speaks of the leftist comrades who were forced to work in underground organizations and many of whom were either killed or exiled from places like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. By governments who, at one time or another, were supported by Western imperalism.

Chapaev

7th October 2008, 18:53

It's simple: Muslim fundamentalists KILL communists in their countries, Iran being one example.The notion that there are genuine communists in predominantly Muslim countries is dubious. Many so-called communists in these countries such as in Iraq are actively collaborating with the imperialists and their hirelings.

Communists should learn from the experience of Afghanistan to avoid offending Muslims. It is noteworthy that the PDPA in Afghanistan starting with Karmal tried to demonstrate that its platform was dedicated to the ideals of Islam.

Some authors such as Kerimov warned against taking an oversimplified view of Islam. He shows that Islam casts its shadow over fighters against imperialism. Islam's flexible ideology makes it possible for it to be used by various political forces who sometimes pursue opposite goals.

Primakov emphasized that a mutual understanding can be achieved between Marxism-Leninism and Islam. Disagreements do not rule out mutual understanding. Not everyone in the world holds the same beliefs.

bcbm

7th October 2008, 19:40

The notion that there are genuine communists in predominantly Muslim countries is dubious.

Yeah, how could those dumb towelheads possibly get it? :rolleyes: Fucking hell.

Agrippa

13th October 2008, 22:32

Except one; belief in the supernatural. That's why those morons who insinuate or outright state that Marxism "is a religion" are wrong.

A rigid, cement distinction between "religious" and "non-religious" philosophies is historically non-existent. For example, Descartes and Newton, the fathers of Enlightenment materialism, were both devout Christians, and the latter an obsessive devotee of alchemy. Another head of the Enlightenment pantheon, Kant, borrowed extensively from Vendantic philosopher Adi Shankara. Marxism itself is indebted to the philosophical system of Hegel which borrows extensively from Taoism and Mahayana Buddhism. And European society as a whole is almost entirely indebted to the scientific advances of medieval Islamic culture.

Most arguments against "the God Hypothesis" can be easily adapted to any other manifestation of supernatural superstition.

No, not really. A criticism of evangelical Christianity could not be applied to Bonpo, for example, or Shaktism, without significant modification, because they are different philosophical worldviews.

That doesn't imply that most Muslims have a nuanced critique of Western imperialism any more than English football hooligans smashing BMWs, Peugeots or Lamborghinis depending on the nationality of the club they've just lost to indicates they have a nuanced knowledge of European politics.

Soccer hooliganism is not an ideological perspective. Islamism is. An Islamist acts based on their perspective and analysis of politics. You may view their political perspective as incorrect or inadequate, but I don't see how "LOL MUHAMMAD HAD SEX WITH LOL I WIPE MY BUTT WITH THE KORAN" qualifies as a nuanced critique of their ideology. Someone can posesse both a nuanced critique of Western materialism and some variation on an Islamic worldview. Islamism as it exists happens to be such a bakrupt and reactionary ideology not because of the nature of Islamic culture but because of the unfolding of class dynamics. Same with Christian fascism, Hindu fascism, etc.

Most anti-Western Muslims criticise the West not because of it's imperialism, but because of the West's "immorality".

And most anti-Western Muslims' notions of Western "immortality", while fueled by bigotry and chauvinism, are rooted in real experiences of colonialism and genocide.

Were the power situation reversed, most anti-Western Muslims would be imperialist against the West.

This confuses me. Are you saying that, if by some random historical fluke, the Islamic world had colonized Europe prior to the primitive accumulation of European capital, things would be reversed? if so, yes, but what's your point? This isn't an alternate history fiction forum. If by some fluke the Incas had colonized the world, the Incas would be imperialist "against the west". etc. etc. As it is, the west is imperialistic against the Islamic world and those interested in mobilizing people against capitalism can exploit the discontent this has created to their advantage, but not if they baselessly attack everything from the literary merits of the Koran to the achievements of medieval Persia, Arabia, Turkey, etc. from a position of mindless materialist-atheist chauvinism.

If you're saying that, through some fluke in the near future, Saudi Arabia became a superpower that dominated the geography of what is now the u.s., things would be the same, yes, you're right, but again, what's the point? Saudi Arabia (and all other Middle Eastern regimes) and the ideologies that justify the existence of Saudi Arabia (Wahabbism, etc.) are products of modern Euro-capitalist imperialism.

Revy

14th October 2008, 01:24

This guy needs to be slapped for his blatant ignorance. Pim Fortuyn was an Islamophobic reactionary. I am gay, and reading about Fortuyn makes me hate him. The Islam-hating far right in Europe doesn't care a bit about gays, in fact they actively hate on them. Some even think that Muslims and gays have a secret alliance to destroy traditional Western values :rolleyes: Pim Fortuyn wasn't shot by a Muslim, he was shot by an animal rights activist :laugh:

It is true that Islamism holds no place in the socialist movement. But anti-Islam prejudice doesn't either. Socialists in Muslim countries are fighting for secularism, not theocracy. And yes, I hold the same view in regards to Christianity....I don't think the socialist movement is going to gain much if it goes on anti-Christian tirades either.

Chapaev

14th October 2008, 20:27

Yeah, how could those dumb towelheads possibly get it?
My point is that revolutionary organizations in most predominantly Muslim countries have been small, isolated, and clandestine without any perceptible influence. Those that exist are marred by ideological errors of a right-opportunist variety. Only in Syria and Lebanon do communist organizations have a correct platform.

bcbm

14th October 2008, 20:31

My point is that revolutionary organizations in most predominantly Muslim countries have been small, isolated, and clandestine without any perceptible influence.Only in recent decades. Before the 1980's, they were the dominant opposition groups in many countries. And either way, being small and isolated doesn't make them not genuine.

Pogue

14th October 2008, 20:36

In the average Turkish small shop, you have a choice of daily newspapers produced by leftist parties. Do any UK leftist parties manage to produce a daily?

In the UK, the socialist newspaper Morning Star comes out everyday of the week. It is a paper with close links to the Communist Party of Britain and covers new to do with unions, liberation movements, etc. All forms of progressive news are convered in this daily, socialist paper.

Devrim

14th October 2008, 21:10

In the UK, the socialist newspaper Morning Star comes out everyday of the week. It is a paper with close links to the Communist Party of Britain and covers new to do with unions, liberation movements, etc. All forms of progressive news are convered in this daily, socialist paper.

Fair comment, I am surprised it is still going. My point was though that the poster was claiming there were few 'left-wing' people in Middle Eastern countries, and in particularly Turkey. I think the fact that there is a choice of leftist daily newspapers proves my point.

Devrim

Faction2008

14th October 2008, 21:30

There is room for Muslims in society, but there ought never to be space for Islamic ideas in civil society. Agreed.

Leo

15th October 2008, 07:24

The notion that there are genuine communists in predominantly Muslim countries is dubious.

Scratch a Western supporter of third world nationalism and you'll find a reactionary chauvinist.

Yehuda Stern

15th October 2008, 11:30

1. It's strange, so many people like to argue that Zionism is or was socialistic, or had a socialist element in it, when the only newspaper that could possibly be considered 'left' is that of the CP, which is outside the Zionist movement (although it is in general pro-Zionist). There is no anti-capitalist Zionist left today. But people are still arguing that there are no real communists in Arab countries? In Muslim countries?

2. The way to approach devout Muslims is not by pretending that Marxism has anything to do with Islam. That sort of attitude is par the course with that of anti-worker leftists, who believe that workers and oppressed people are dumb little children who can't handle hard truths. When an ISLer approaches a person who identifies as a devout Muslim in the conversation, we speak clearly about our differences and about Marxist opposition to religion as part of the state. But we also make it clear that we will defend that person's right to practice his religion and that we support all struggles of oppressed people against the Zionist state - Muslim or not, religious or not.

Colonello Buendia

15th October 2008, 13:22

Yehuda Stern

15th October 2008, 14:39

but he was anti-semitic and so were most people in that time. as was Marx actually.

Bullshit. Kindly show that somehow.

you make a good point but in britain Cheung Mos position would help the left a little because the main lefty groups(SWP, RESPECT) are islamist apologists.

What do you mean by help the left? Do you mean that it will help white racists not be afraid of left-wing groups that they associate with Muslims and Arabs?

ROM

15th October 2008, 14:56

All religions are a joke but those that approve killing as a rightous act are dangerous.
You Stated Muslims are lunatics. I disagree, only the fanatical extremists are in deed
total LUNATIS.MMMMMMMMMMM And Iran is supplying them with NUKES or at least soon it will be. It's TIME RUSSIA,USA,All EURO and the rest of the world DEMAND VERIFICATION of thier use of this technology. So far the major POWERS bicker to much with one another to form enough WORLD SOLIDARITY to bypass thier individual pettyness and UNITE. If not BYE BYE"'''''''''''''''''WHOOSH"

Dean

15th October 2008, 15:01

but he was anti-semitic and so were most people in that time. as was Marx actually.

and to Parairie fire, you make a good point but in britain Cheung Mos position would help the left a little because the main lefty groups(SWP, RESPECT) are islamist apologists.

Marx wasn't anti-Semitic. And I wonder how many Jews and Arab Semites at the time were anti-Semites. :lol:

peaccenicked

15th October 2008, 20:39

Here is two youtubes I made of the protest in Glasgow against the harassment of Muslims. You are only allowed ten minutes on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFJYDwkMFSA&eurl=http://inthesenewtimes.com/2008/10/15/video-protest-against-harassment-of-muslim-at-glasgow-airport/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSUQfwUNomE&feature=related

Wanted Man

15th October 2008, 22:49

and to Parairie fire, you make a good point but in britain Cheung Mos position would help the left a little because the main lefty groups(SWP, RESPECT) are islamist apologists.
Lol wut? Not that I necessarily agree with the positions of those groups, but still. "Islamist apologist" is just the standard European far-right populist (or even straight-forward fascist) canard against anyone who has the audacity to accept the fact that immigrant workers are equal to us, and have the same interests as us, and whose left-wing organisations are inclusionary towards them.

What kind of "help" would Cheung Mo's position offer? Bring us new pseudo-left wing movements who exclude immigrants because they have a "backwards religion" while turning a blind eye to protestantism and catholicism because "we have to stay in touch with the white working class" or some such racist crap? Increase the amount of "left" male chauvinists who want to "liberate women" by "ripping off the oppressive veil" (i.e. ban women from wearing the veil in public)?

Britain doesn't need a Pim Fortuyn, it already has Nick Griffin. At least British fascism is still crude and transparent. Rather than a right-wing populist movement with a gay leader who says: "Do I like Moroccan boys? I sleep with them" while simultaneously promoting the most inhumane treatment of immigrants. A movement that claims to be in touch with "the common people", all the while cutting underhanded deals with the real estate mafia.

Look beyond the rhetoric of the populist "anti-islamists" and you'll find the interests of the big capital, in leaders who whip up ethnic and religious tensions to pit workers within western countries against one another. Thus paving the way for cheaper employment, cheaper real estate, more abilities to demolish social housing in favour of yuppie houses, the abridgement of civil rights (the "libertarian" façade drops quickly) or even imperialist wars against yet more "backwards muslims". There is no way one can be on the "left" while lining up behind these people, while pretending that their views on Islam are just enlightened marxist opposition to organised religion.

Colonello Buendia

15th October 2008, 23:14

Bullshit. Kindly show that somehow.

What do you mean by help the left? Do you mean that it will help white racists not be afraid of left-wing groups that they associate with Muslims and Arabs? It will mean that leftists don't immediately get linked with Hezbollah. I support the working class regardless of religious faith but I do think that wholly defending a position such as that of radical islamist clerics (as is done by a number of brit leftists) is detrimental to what we are trying to achieve.

As for my previous statement, Apologies, I meant Bakunin not Marx Bakunin was not a fan of jews. Shakespear is clearly anti-semitic, I meant look at the merchant of venice

Wanted Man

15th October 2008, 23:25

It will mean that leftists don't immediately get linked with Hezbollah. I support the working class regardless of religious faith but I do think that wholly defending a position such as that of radical islamist clerics (as is done by a number of brit leftists) is detrimental to what we are trying to achieve.
Well, obviously. But I'm not suggesting that. I also seriously doubt that any British left group (even the SWP) unconditionally supports "radical islamist clerics". If someone can prove me wrong on this, I'll concede that some left groups do go too far in this. I know that some groups (in the Netherlands as well) give too much credence to "community representatives" with reactionary ideas, but even they don't seem to commit themselves to a full-scale alliance, or an endorsement of their religious views.

Rather, they make this (possibly misguided) move as a means of defence against racism. I don't approve of it. But it is a problem caused by bourgeois nationalism, not by misguided reactions against bourgeois nationalism with the well-intentioned aim of preserving working class unity, instead of supporting the nationalists in their destruction of it.

These tendencies should be criticised. But it's a whole different thing to line up behind the nationalists. People who honour the "legacy" of Fortuyn, Van Gogh, those hilarious Danish cartoonists, etc. cannot legitimately claim to support internationalism or working class unity of any sort.

Colonello Buendia

15th October 2008, 23:37

you're right essentially but Gearge Galloway (supposedly leftist) declared he was a hezbollah man I.e. he supported a reactionary organisation with a corporatist element. I just take issue with the growing current of barely avoiding coming out and saying that as an organisation you support Al Quaeda. which I must say I've seen a number of lefties doing.

Comrade B

16th October 2008, 00:50

To the people claiming that Islamic leaders kill communists.
They do do this, but the communists being killed are also Muslim.

Fanatics are our enemies, all religious fanatics.

Previous to being an ass hole pope, the pope was just a plain ass hole, who made his name excommunicating South American and Central American communists from the Catholic church. If he had it his way, I am sure he would have sent them to the wall as well.

The crazy leaders of Israel kill hundreds of ordinary people in their neighboring countries because of the threat their crazy leaders pose to Israel.

George Bush is a member of a church that believes that for the rapture to come, Baghdad must have some kind of massive temple in it, or something like that (I don't really listen to these crazies)

I am sure I could find Hindu, Taoist, anything lunatics out there.

The point is, it is not the religion itself that is our enemy, nor is it the people, it is violent religious fanatics.

Yehuda Stern

16th October 2008, 00:56

Well, obviously. But I'm not suggesting that. I also seriously doubt that any British left group (even the SWP) unconditionally supports "radical islamist clerics". If someone can prove me wrong on this, I'll concede that some left groups do go too far in this. I know that some groups (in the Netherlands as well) give too much credence to "community representatives" with reactionary ideas, but even they don't seem to commit themselves to a full-scale alliance, or an endorsement of their religious views.The British SWP's critical support of Islamist resistance movements is far too supportive and not very critical. The best way I can think of showing this is that they claim to want to have a Marxist leadership for these movements, but when the ISL came forward to the SWP thinking it was a revolutionary organization, the first thing they advised us to do was to leave Israel (not, for example, try to organize a Palestinian workers' party). Needless to say, that's hardly the best way to build a proletarian anti-imperialist leadership.

So yes, there are groups who support Muslim politicians and movements in an opportunist way. But British racists who hate the SWP or other left groups don't hate them for that, they have them for protecting Muslims and Arabs against racist attacks. To suggest that the left needs to join in the Muslim-bashing to win over these hooligan elements is obscene. In Israel, that means we would have to attack 'Muslim terrorism' as a way of attracting Israeli workers with a Zionist consciousness. Again I am appalled that someone with such a position could be considered 'left.'

you're right essentially but Gearge Galloway (supposedly leftist) declared he was a hezbollah manGeorge Galloway is a former Labour MP who should never have been more than a gag. He showed more spine than other Labour MPs by insisting on opposing the war despite the fact that that got him kicked out of his party, but it ends there. That some left-wing elements picked him up to look more 'respectable' just really shows the nature of those groups.

The crazy leaders of Israel kill hundreds of ordinary people in their neighboring countries because of the threat their crazy leaders pose to Israel.

So, what are you saying, that Arab leaders are to blame for the way Israel treats the Palestinians?

Comrade B

17th October 2008, 23:45

So, what are you saying, that Arab leaders are to blame for the way Israel treats the Palestinians?
I am saying that the Israel is just as violent as the people that want to destroy it, nothing of the sort of who is responsible for the violence

Yehuda Stern

18th October 2008, 00:23

That's strange. I used to think that Israel is much more violent, and that Israel's violence and world imperialism's support for it drive desperate people to terrible acts that are nowhere as deadly as what Israel does to the Palestinians, Lebanese etc. We could just compare death tolls if we wanted to.

Comrade B

18th October 2008, 00:48

If the enemies of Israel were as powerful as it is, they would be doing the same amount of killing

ashaman1324

18th October 2008, 02:13

... this thread is completely ridiculous.
we can agree that banning music or anything else is bad.
this is creative oppression.
im not entirely sure when the thread was hijacked but its clear nothing new can be gained from the original topic.
as to the most recent topic, (israeli imperialism) is purely reactionary. imperialist, but reactionary to the initial fascism against the jews when a jewish state was created in the late 40's. its not the political leaders i blame, but the religious leaders and radicals who have claimed that israeli/ palestinians cannot co-exist and have sole rights to the land and religious sites and convinced the general populace and politicians to hate israel/ palestine. if religion were less integrated into the lives and government of the region there wouldn't be anything to fight over.

Sam_b

18th October 2008, 02:36

I also seriously doubt that any British left group (even the SWP) unconditionally supports "radical islamist clerics".

We give unconditional critical support to national liberation movements in the Middle East. No, we do not support 'radical Islamist clerics' in the slightest, this is a complete oversight and a failure to grip the very basic arguments that we are putting forward.

It is undeniable, I believe, to suggest that organisations such as Hezbollah do not have a very sizeable and a very vocal movement from below, a movement of working class people. The question is, however: why are these people organising under the Hezbollah umbrella in Lebanon, and why under Hamas in Palestine. The answer is very simple: because they see first hand the murderous brutality of imperialism in their country and want to defend their communities against it. The SWP have not for a minute given support to the top layer of Hezbollah. We ally ourself with the working class and support their right to live free from imperialism. Right now the biggest threat to the working class in the Middle East comes from imperialism at the hands of Israel and its allies, and emphatically not from 'radical mullahs' or the like.

Yehuda is right to say that the right attacks us because we will take a stand against Islamophobia and xenophobia, unlike the dispicable actions of some of the left in Britain who practically pander to the state's divide-and-rule tactics of branding Muslims 'terrorists' and 'fundamentals'.

I don't wish to name names, and this is by far not the worst of the British left; but I can't help but go back to reiterate the words of the CWI's Scottish section at Solidarity conference 2007 where they opposed proposals for an open-borders immigration policy because the left has to pay attention to "the very real fears of the white working class". This is not how we unite workers and smash the divide-and-rule tactics of the ruling class. We do it as one.

So, again, we give our support to workers regardless of their ethnicity or background. When Islamophobia arises, we will defend Muslims against it, and ultimately we will defend our brothers and sisters in the Middle East and their right to oppose imperialism.

Faux Real

18th October 2008, 02:50

If the enemies of Israel were as powerful as it is, they would be doing the same amount of killingMoot point, and as for what you said earlier:

The crazy leaders of Israel kill hundreds of ordinary people in their neighboring countries because of the threat their crazy leaders pose to Israel."Destroying Israel" (which Ahmadinejad never said, it was misquoted and never corrected in the MSM) would be equivalent of nuking it now? Do you imagine those 'crazies' would be riding across on horses wielding scimitars and beheading every man woman and child? It amazes me that some people on this forum still insist on Israel being some defenceless plot of land and the opposition comprises of backward barbarians. Nobody on this site would oppose replacing the Israeli state with a truly democratic governance with equal voices for all sides, and that's what the opposition has been fighting for.

Secondly, those 'leaders' are in cahoots with the Israeli state. None would dare because they know the brute force with which the militarised state operates. There is a reason freedom of movement between Jordan/West Bank and Egypt/Gaza is severely hindered.

The point is, it is not the religion itself that is our enemy, nor is it the people, it is violent religious fanatics. Religious fanatics are 'our' enemy? Then your point has little to do with the Israeli state because it along with Zionism is a secular ideology based on ethnic superiority.

shaman:

imperialist, but reactionary to the initial fascism against the jews when a jewish state was created in the late 40's.is that an excuse?

its not the political leaders i blame, but the religious leaders and radicals who have claimed that israeli/ palestinians cannot co-exist and have sole rights to the land and religious sites and convinced the general populace and politicians to hate israel/ palestine.You're completely ignoring the people responsible for this mess, the British and French for double-crossing the Arab separatists during WWI. Now, it's America that replaced that role. A lack of co-existence today has little to do with religion and is purely political.

if religion were less integrated into the lives and government of the region there wouldn't be anything to fight over.the tragedy here is that co-existance thrived under the last religious state in the levant (ottomans) and the aggressive party responsible for the tensions of the past 6-7 decades are the zionist projects' leaders.

Comrade B

18th October 2008, 03:18

Where the fuck did you guys get the idea that I was pro-Israel?

Lets set this straight, I hate the Israeli government. I do not think the Iranian government is any better.

ashaman1324

18th October 2008, 05:04

is that an excuse?
an excuse for imperialism? absolutely not.

You're completely ignoring the people responsible for this mess, the British and French for double-crossing the Arab separatists during WWI.
israel was created after WW2

A lack of co-existence today has little to do with religion and is purely political.
prove it. if israeli and palestinians were both jewish or both muslim there would be no conflict. israel is oppressing the palestinians by ignoring their customs and laws and forcing jewish laws upon them, amongst other things. how would this be an issue if religion were out of the picture?

Faux Real

18th October 2008, 07:53

israel was created after WW2
Right, right when the mandate was about to expire and the Brits secured their stake by supplying and arming the soon-to-be Israelis with defeated Germany's weapons.

prove it. if israeli and palestinians were both jewish or both muslim there would be no conflict. israel is oppressing the palestinians by ignoring their customs and laws and forcing jewish laws upon them, amongst other things. how would this be an issue if religion were out of the picture?
Being a communist and a materialist (I assume) you should have the proof already.

BraneMatter

18th October 2008, 10:33

Well, since religious people claim to "answer to a higher authority," I guess it all depends on what the conception of this "higher authority" is, and how this power requires one to behave. By "higher power" I include not only the concept of a "god" itself, but also any sort of institutional heirarchy or leader (pope, imam, priest, witch doctor, etc.) that claims to speak for said "god."

Perhaps "god" is a Marxist, or even an anarchist! Hey, it could happen... any religion ever think of that??? :D

Historically, most religions seem to be reactionary and tend to align with the money class. Money and power seem to be a primary occupation.

I have yet to find a religion that will pay me to be a member, and yet they all claim that my "soul" is worth far more than any gold or jewels! If they were so damned concerned about my "salvation," then let them put their money where their mouth is!

Hell, I might even have settled for some of their time, or an occasional helping hand, but I've never really had an honest show of minimal concern or friendship from religious people. It's mostly a one-way street, as in what can I give to them or their "church." And, of course, I must "convert" to their way of thinking and acting. Once they discover I'm a communist, they seem to loose any concern or interest in either my soul or physical circumstances, since they've decided I'm going to burn in hell anyways! :laugh:

I've stood alongside Quakers in anti-war demonstrations, and I've been supportive of efforts by some liberal churches and synagogues in terms of their social justice and welfare work, and that is all fine and good, but there is a huge part of the religious world that I will never be able to work with because of their elitist, intolerant, and exclusionary views, actions, and history.

ashaman1324

18th October 2008, 15:55

Right, right when the mandate was about to expire and the Brits secured their stake by supplying and arming the soon-to-be Israelis with defeated Germany's weapons.
youve got me there. i was curious where WW1 came into the picture though.

Being a communist and a materialist (I assume) you should have the proof already.
proof that religion isnt at least part of the israeli- palestine conflict? ive yet to find any proof to that.

Yehuda Stern

18th October 2008, 17:51

if israeli and palestinians were both jewish or both muslim there would be no conflict. israel is oppressing the palestinians by ignoring their customs and laws and forcing jewish laws upon them, amongst other things. how would this be an issue if religion were out of the picture?

This is completely false. The conflict has begun not because of religious oppression, but because of colonization and theft of land by the Zionists. As proof of this, one could just point out to the very peaceful and positive relationship between pre-Zionist Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian Arabs, which was only broken because of the provocations of the Zionists themselves in the late 1920s.

Right, right when the mandate was about to expire and the Brits secured their stake by supplying and arming the soon-to-be Israelis with defeated Germany's weapons.

I'm not really getting what your'e saying, but either way, when the mandate was about to expire, the British set up the Arab League. Those who supplied the Zionists with weapons were everyone's favorite socialist, progressive, anti-Zionist Soviets.

I have yet to find a religion that will pay me to be a member, and yet they all claim that my "soul" is worth far more than any gold or jewels! If they were so damned concerned about my "salvation," then let them put their money where their mouth is!

That would open the door for any greedy bastard to become a member of that religion, so obviously that would not solve anything. Most times, by the way, it costs nothing to convert. Conversion to Judaism is tough, but doesn't cost money to my knowledge. The conversion to Islam is very easy and is free as well. (Not that I'm advocating any of that, naturally)

youve got me there. i was curious where WW1 came into the picture though.

In WWI, the British enlisted the help of both Arab nationalists who wanted to be free of the Ottoman Empire and of Zionists who thought the British would let them set up a Jewish state. Promising something to both sides and using the ensuing conflicts to protect themselves is a game the British were to play time and time again in Palestine, and possibly in other countries.

ashaman1324

18th October 2008, 20:55

This is completely false. The conflict has begun not because of religious oppression, but because of colonization and theft of land by the Zionists. As proof of this, one could just point out to the very peaceful and positive relationship between pre-Zionist Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian Arabs, which was only broken because of the provocations of the Zionists themselves in the late 1920s.
zionism is a jewish religious movement. i would call this a religious conflict, because the zionists are fighting for their religious beliefs.

In WWI, the British enlisted the help of both Arab nationalists who wanted to be free of the Ottoman Empire and of Zionists who thought the British would let them set up a Jewish state. Promising something to both sides and using the ensuing conflicts to protect themselves is a game the British were to play time and time again in Palestine, and possibly in other countries.
both happened didnt they? the ottoman empire fell and the jews got israel.
forgive my ignorance on the ottoman empire, im just curious.

Yehuda Stern

19th October 2008, 01:14

zionism is a jewish religious movement. i would call this a religious conflict, because the zionists are fighting for their religious beliefs.Wrong once more. Zionism was a colonialist movement with a very small religious wing, which only grew somewhat after the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. Herzl, Weizmann, Ben Gurion and most other prominent leaders of the movement from before the 1970s were all secular.

both happened didnt they? the ottoman empire fell and the jews got israel.
forgive my ignorance on the ottoman empire, im just curious.Well, eventually. See, the British promised some Arab royalists and some nationalists that they would get a sovereign state in Palestine. This meant not just freedom from the Ottomans, but freedom from all imperialists. That never happened, to this very day. The Zionists did get Palestine in the end, but that was over 30 years since it was 'promised'* to them, and when they did steal the land from the Palestinians it was in spite of the British imperialists' will.

*I'm using apostrophes because many historians argue that the British never promised the Zionists anything more than the option to settle in Palestine.